I tried to directly answer your ten questions of your negative video. It would/could not post. ----- My PROOF; read, the "New Testament" per the eyewitness, Apostle Luke (who was a physician), chapter 6, verses 6-10. "(Jesus) "Stretch forth thy hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Before eyewitnesses; thus ADMIT the truth; by Divine Power, God and Jesus Christ, CREATED flesh and bone; PROVED CREATION ! Preacher Doc

Nope. Nope nope nope. First of all, you can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true; take a logic class, and when you get to the part about logical fallacies, pay particular attention to "begging the question". Second, Luke himself says, right at the very beginning of his letter, that he is not an eyewitness to any of the events he is reporting, but that he is only a chronicler. Luke 1:1-4:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

I tried to directly answer your ten questions of your negative video. It would/could not post. ----- My PROOF; read, the "New Testament" per the eyewitness, Apostle Luke (who was a physician), chapter 6, verses 6-10. "(Jesus) "Stretch forth thy hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Before eyewitnesses; thus ADMIT the truth; by Divine Power, God and Jesus Christ, CREATED flesh and bone; PROVED CREATION ! Preacher Doc

always fun when they forget that this first, wasn't an amputation

Quote

6 On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.

and pretty much all that Doc X and pianodwarf said.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

You still seem to think that, if you could just have enough time, you would be proven right.

I think that there are alot of intelligent people who my beliefs line up with that have done their homework, and dug up the archeological studies and have good evidence to support their beliefs. I am taught by people and read up on people who trust them, and thus based off my trust in their work, I believe there to be evidence supporting the bible account of things. However, as I stated, I don't have the research, I haven't done the research, and I haven't got the argument capable to refute you so, I concede. Ignorance is not fun, its not flattering and it doesn't stand up in here. I wouldn't expect you to argue something you haven't put the time in on, so I will do the same.

Setting aside the question of what the heck unholiness even means, I thought yhwh was merciful and all that? Why can yhwh not just transform unholiness into holiness? Or just allow unholiness? I mean, cripes, it is not like we are talking about forgiving Mao. We are talking about your run of the mill average guy who is occasionally rude, swears and wants to screw the babysitter. In the greater scheme of things, BFD. But yhwh has to make a federal issue out of that and sentence him to infinite torture? And why? Because he had the temerity to not have enough evidence to believe yhwh was not an actual being.

if you transform unholiness to holiness, you have cleaned something that was unclean. that is what forgiveness is. Why did earth end up round, why not an egg? It is what it is. But where do we draw the line. if Mao is not forgiveable but the average guy is, where is the line between what is fair to give a free pass and what is not. preachers and teachers of the bible want to say that salvation is free, but it isn't. According to what I know, if you want to be forgiven, you have to be willing to give up your own life and submit everything to God. It requires repentance. Now if someone is willing to make that sacrifice, the bible says, they can be forgiven. If thats true, even the theif on the cross has a chance, but it requires repentance and sacrifice. That cost changes alot what we are talking about. But it isn't because of the evidence that there is unbelief. If that were true, then no one would believe if they just look at the evidence. It is your interpretation of the evidence that leads to your unbelief. It is your perception, it is your view and reason, that forces you to not believe. What I see more than anything else in these chats is an attitude of nothing is my fault, it is always someone elses fault and someone elses responsibility.

This is stupid. Don't take that personally, because you did not come up with that. If Mao asked for forgiveness, he would get into heaven, but the guy mentioned above would not. That is supposed to be fair?

it is fair because the guy above and Mao have the same options, ask God for forgiveness or don't. We are each individually responsibility to decide for ourselves what or who we believe.

Nope. Everything the serpent said was absolutely true. Quote exactly what the lie was.

Gen 3:4 the serpant tells eve "you will not surely die" and then explains that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing Good and Evil. Gen 3:19 God reiterates that because they ate from the forbidden tree they will surely die.

Nope. Nope nope nope. First of all, you can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true; take a logic class, and when you get to the part about logical fallacies, pay particular attention to "begging the question". Second, Luke himself says, right at the very beginning of his letter, that he is not an eyewitness to any of the events he is reporting, but that he is only a chronicler. Luke 1:1-4:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

this ought to make you happy. 1 there were eyewitnesses 2 someone took the time to carefully investigate the witnesses and 3 that the person took the time to write the findings down.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

this ought to make you happy. 1 there were eyewitnesses 2 someone took the time to carefully investigate the witnesses and 3 that the person took the time to write the findings down.

No, it doesn't make me happy at all.

1) There were, in fact, no eyewitnesses to anything that Jesus did; apart from the fact that Luke himself says he was not an eyewitness, we also know that Matthew, Mark, and John are not eyewitness accounts, either.

And even if there had been eyewitnesses, well, here we go again: you're probably presupposing, like most laypeople do, that eyewitness testimony is some of the best evidence available. In fact, it's actually just about the worst. Here, I'll show you. Watch this video. It's a card trick in which the backs of a deck of cards changes from one color to another one. Watch closely, and see whether you can catch the trick -- I have yet to hear of a single person who has. When you're done, tell me whether you still think eyewitness testimony is so great.

2) We don't know that. It's just as plausible that the four gospels are works of fiction. Actually, it's quite a bit more plausible that they're works of fiction.

3) Ditto.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

"What I see more than anything else in these chats is an attitude of nothing is my fault, it is always someone elses fault and someone elses responsibility."--phelix22

Christianity included the concept of someone else (Jesus) taking responsibiblity for our mistakes, right? And that we are screwed because of Adam and Eve making mistakes.

Actually what we atheists tend to think is the opposite of that: we are ultimately responsible for what we do, and nobody else should have to be tortured to pay for our misbehavior. And we should not be punished for somthing someone else did. Along with this is the idea that any punishment should be fair and fit the crime, ie:

2)no punishment for normal human behavior that harms nobody--masturbation, looking at nekkid pictures of consenting adults, using curse words, having sex without being married, using birth control, drinking a can of beer, being gay are not worthy of eternal or any other punishment.

3)no punishment for what you do or don't believe inside your own head! Anything else is thoughtcrime, something only totalitarian dictators favor.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

But where do we draw the line. if Mao is not forgiveable but the average guy is, where is the line between what is fair to give a free pass and what is not.

So you are saying it is a fine line between the average guy and Mao Zhedung? It is a slippery slope from a little cursing and lust to murdering 50 million people? I am not sure how we can have a conversation. Your perspective is so ... what's the word?... bizarre, I am not sure how I can relate. I think your thesis is that all sin is equal in god's eyes, and so all sin is equally punishable. You've just not given me any kind of rational basis for that. You've just given me "where do you draw the line?" How the fuck should I know? I'm not in charge.

I just know the current system is a raw deal. Stalin, Hitler and Mao - collectively murderers of almost 100 million people - could ask for forgiveness and be golden. But I - collectively responsible for a little premarital sex, looking a pictures of people screwing, frequently swearing and a very infrequently lying - will be tortured forever because I cannot see any compelling reason to believe in a god.

If you remember, my post was in response to your question:

Quote

How can a Holy and Pure God allow unholiness?

My point was, it's god. It can allow whatever it wants. I do not see how some minor things would ruffle yhwh's feathers so mush as to warrant eternal punishment. And the system right now, is preposterous and unfair. Your response so far is... unconvincing.

Then holy is an unreasonable standard. And how would anyone even know what the standard is? It is not as if you have any empiracle testing.

that is why holiness is godliness. It isn't something that is reasonably attainable, thus it is our inability to be holy that exposes our need for a savior. I think.

This just gets weirder. You agree with me. yhwh insisting on holinees is completely unreasonable. Your answer to the problem is a savior, though. My answer is for yhwh to unpucker his butthole and relax.

]Gen 3:4 the serpant tells eve "you will not surely die" and then explains that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing Good and Evil. Gen 3:19 God reiterates that because they ate from the forbidden tree they will surely die.

serpent said: "your eyes will be opened" What happened: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened"Verdict: True.

serpent said: "you will be like God, knowing good and evil." what happened: '22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil"'verdict: True Even yhwh admits it to the other gods.

serpent said: "You surely will not die!" yhwh said: "17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." what happened:Eve said: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." sounds to me like she was making excuses. Like children do when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. what else happened:

Quote

and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- ... 24So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Quote

5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

verdict: eating the apple did not kill them. As you can see they did not die in the day. They lived for a very very long time. There is nothing that says they were initially immortal. There is nothing that said they changed and became mortal. The ground was cursed and they had to work for a living. But that is a far cry from "in the day you eat it you will surely die." Did not happen.